(1) The Post-Keynesian Economics Society (PKES) committee has posted a second more detailed public statement seeking to justify my suspension. In my view, their new statement further obscures the issue and is even more misleading.
The only thing that matters is did the article (“The Ukraine war and Europe’s deepening march of folly”) which triggered my suspension violate the listserve rules?
The committee has persistently avoided that question as the article is clearly compliant, being economics related and widely published. Now, the committee invokes a history that may reveal additional past wrongdoing on its part.
(2) The PKES statement refers to my suspension in 2022 and claims “many” of my postings thereafter have been non-compliant.
I was suspended in October 2022 for a forensic economics article on the Nord Stream pipeline titled “Sabotaging Germany, blaming Russia: another view of the Nord Stream pipeline attack”.
First, that suspension is irrelevant to the current issue, and I also believe it was unjustified. Parenthetically, my Nord Stream article is worth reading for its analytical economic logic, what it says about media reporting on Ukraine, and because its claims have been substantially vindicated.
Second, since then I have tried even more scrupulously to abide by the listserve rules, only sending announcements of published or publishable material of political economic interest. I think the e-mail record would support that.
(3) In my view, my current suspension is unjustified and the PKES committee is tainted by pro-Ukrainian sentiments.
Ironically, the committee’s narrowing of the listserve criteria promises to replicate the intolerance of mainstream economics, about which Post Keynesians rightly complain. That gets to the most important point from this operetta, which is the threat to pluralistic communication.
(4) The committee closes by declaring it now intends to consult members about how its system should operate, so some good may yet come from my public protest of my unjust suspension.
As described in my post “A Niemöller moment: more on being cancelled Post Keynesian style“, I propose adoption of a system that distinguishes between an opt-out “Announcement listserve” and an opt-in “Discussion listserve”. Announcements would be required to be short and concise, but the scope of permissible subject matter would be broad. Responses would be via the discussion listserve. In accordance with pluralist principles, the system would err on the side of openness.
I hope there is no need for further comment on the particulars of this discouraging episode.